Viking reads the terms of service for Google Payments (discussed here) and discovers:
Here is the really interesting part though. Google Payments is set up like the DGC industry in regards to user responsibility & payment repudiability."Buyer is responsible for any and all transactions by persons that Buyer gives access to or that otherwise use such username or password and any and all consequences of use or misuse of such username and password.""all Payment Transactions processed through the Service are non-refundable to Buyer and are non-reversible [...] fraud and other disputes regarding transactions shall not entitle Buyer to a refund of the Payment Amount or a reversal of a Payment Transaction"
This ought to be very interesting to watch as they are completely violating the May Scale. They facilitate cc payments from the buyer, but the seller "gets paid & stays paid".
Indeed. Although, if they can hold the line on that issue, and keep their user base clean, this would mean that they would be well placed for the future. Margins in transactions in non-reversable payment systems range from 0.1% to 0.5% whereas reversible payments charge around 4-5%. Easy meat.
Posted by iang at March 2, 2006 12:05 PM | TrackBackHow can that possibly work?
WebMoney is difficult (but possible) to reverse, yet they refuse to accept CCs, because of the easy reversibility. How can one possibly give irreversible cash for reversible CC payment? It's an opportunity for fraud with which one can get away!
As for the May Scale, it's a bit dated. I wouldn't single out US dollars, especially now that the US government is two weeks(!) away from technical bankruptcy. E-gold is also a bit over-rated IMHO.
Posted by: Daniel A. Nagy at March 2, 2006 01:30 PMGoogle is playing a clever game. They are telling buyers that Google will not reverse payments, but nowhere do they specifically say that the credit card issuer will not reverse the charge if the buyer complains. I believe that if buyers don't get their goods and file a chargeback with the card issuer, Google will have to pay. Whether Google goes after the seller is the real question.
Posted by: David Watts at March 4, 2006 01:46 PM